This is bad because the number of space junk items will increase if the drag that burns them up is lessened and more junk keeps going up. There need to be really strong laws and treaties about all future gear that launches having some way to de-orbit built into it. Won;t help if something explodes, of course, but every reduction in trash drops the odds of provoking the Kessler syndrome.

jso2897:Stupid apes.[i18.photobucket.com image 400x300]The world will be fine without us.

You know, I've often thought that the obsession with "humanity is killing the planet" is nothing more than a desperate attempt for people to convince themselves that they matter. The truth is that the planet will go on just about how it's going now whether we live on it or not. Not only do we not matter in the slightest as individuals, we don't even matter collectively. This planet will spin on, supporting plenty of life, for eons after the final, pathetic human has gasped his last bubbling breath. We are not special. We are not bothering this planet. We are not enhancing this planet. We are nothing.

untaken_name:jso2897: Stupid apes.[i18.photobucket.com image 400x300]The world will be fine without us.

You know, I've often thought that the obsession with "humanity is killing the planet" is nothing more than a desperate attempt for people to convince themselves that they matter. The truth is that the planet will go on just about how it's going now whether we live on it or not. Not only do we not matter in the slightest as individuals, we don't even matter collectively. This planet will spin on, supporting plenty of life, for eons after the final, pathetic human has gasped his last bubbling breath. We are not special. We are not bothering this planet. We are not enhancing this planet. We are nothing.

Someone somewhere is always saying the end is nigh. Every time they are wrong.

SevenizGud:Well, then I guess it's a good thing that it isn't happening:

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

Cue the idiots who says "fifteen years is just weather".

Based on Thread 7431185's lengthy debate, I still don't understand what you're claiming. Are you saying that man-made global warming is a myth based on this graph, or are you merely pointing out that during this very specific chunk of time according to this data set we're in a cooling trend? 'Cause if you plot the same data starting in either 1997 or 1999, we're in a warming trend. And the longer-term trends, of course, show a substantial warming trend that correlates nicely with large-scale human production of atmospheric CO2.

wiredroach:SevenizGud: Well, then I guess it's a good thing that it isn't happening:

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

Cue the idiots who says "fifteen years is just weather".

Based on Thread 7431185's lengthy debate, I still don't understand what you're claiming. Are you saying that man-made global warming is a myth based on this graph, or are you merely pointing out that during this very specific chunk of time according to this data set we're in a cooling trend? 'Cause if you plot the same data starting in either 1997 or 1999, we're in a warming trend. And the longer-term trends, of course, show a substantial warming trend that correlates nicely with large-scale human production of atmospheric CO2.

no im afraid it doesn't as CO2 we put into the air goes down through regulation the amount in the air keeps going up.... so no they really do not correlate nicely

spentshells:no im afraid it doesn't as CO2 we put into the air goes down through regulation the amount in the air keeps going up.... so no they really do not correlate nicely

What are you talking about? The amount of CO2 we (meaning all humans) put in the air keeps going up, except for a blip from the global recession. And if you compare our emissions to the amount of CO2 in the air, they agree quite well with an approximately constant airborne fraction of about 0.45.

SevenizGud:wiredroach: Cause if you plot the same data starting in either 1997 or 1999

That graph DOES start in 1997. Try some math, Cletus. What year is it now? Can you count to fifteen? It this many (holds up three hands).

I'm not sure what inputs you're using in the interface, but when I type 1997 and 2012, I get a temp. increase. Same with a 1999 - 2012 range. Only 1998 - 2012 shows a decrease. So my question still stands: are you claiming human caused global warming doesn't exist because you can define a cooling trend if you pick a very specific, arbitrary starting date? Because that doesn't prove squat.

SevenizGud: Well, then I guess it's a good thing that it isn't happening:

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

Cue the idiots who says "fifteen years is just weather".

Based on Thread 7431185's lengthy debate, I still don't understand what you're claiming. Are you saying that man-made global warming is a myth based on this graph, or are you merely pointing out that during this very specific chunk of time according to this data set we're in a cooling trend? 'Cause if you plot the same data starting in either 1997 or 1999, we're in a warming trend. And the longer-term trends, of course, show a substantial warming trend that correlates nicely with large-scale human production of atmospheric CO2.

In the first place, temperature does NOT correlate well with carbon dioxide, unless you skip the first four and a half billion years, and focus on the last hundred and fifty years.

Second, it's all a matter of scale. Using the temperature since the last major glaciation (ice age, colloquially) we are in a cooling trend which will end, INEVITABLY with us going back into another major glaciation.

GeneralJim:In the first place, temperature does NOT correlate well with carbon dioxide, unless you skip the first four and a half billion years, and focus on the last hundred and fifty years.

Second, it's all a matter of scale. Using the temperature since the last major glaciation (ice age, colloquially) we are in a cooling trend which will end, INEVITABLY with us going back into another major glaciation.

That's the entire point...very long-scale temperature variations aren't the issue...the dramatic rise in temperature coinciding with the Industrial Revolution is. If the majority of climate scientists are correct, the recent increase in global temperatures is caused by human activity, is continuing, and may result in additional dramatic increases due to feedback effects from decreased sunlight reflectance due to melted ice sheets, etc.

15,000-year ice age cycles won't mean a thing if we jack up the world temperature beyond recall due to our own carbon inputs.

15,000-year ice age cycles won't mean a thing if we jack up the world temperature beyond recall due to our own carbon inputs.

Yeah, well, we won't -- at least not through carbon dioxide. We may well be doing something ELSE which raises temperature.

The idea of carbon dioxide level change being a significant driver of planetary temperature is falsified by the fact that over the 400,000 years of the Vostok ice cores, carbon dioxide levels have FOLLOWED temperature changes, without any sign of positive feedback effects. For those not ignorant of science and feedback systems, this should be sufficient. The idea that man is heating the planet up significantly is being kept alive because the proposed "fixes" for this non-existent problem are viewed as fortunate for people in power, and desirous of more power and money.

GeneralJim:The idea that man is heating the planet up significantly is being kept alive because the proposed "fixes" for this non-existent problem are viewed as fortunate for people in power, and desirous of more power and money.

Hmm...the people in power...that would pretty much be the coal and petroleum industries. Not exactly fans of curbing carbon outputs.

GeneralJim:wiredroach: 15,000-year ice age cycles won't mean a thing if we jack up the world temperature beyond recall due to our own carbon inputs.Yeah, well, we won't -- at least not through carbon dioxide. We may well be doing something ELSE which raises temperature.

The idea of carbon dioxide level change being a significant driver of planetary temperature is falsified by the fact that over the 400,000 years of the Vostok ice cores, carbon dioxide levels have FOLLOWED temperature changes, without any sign of positive feedback effects. For those not ignorant of science and feedback systems, this should be sufficient. The idea that man is heating the planet up significantly is being kept alive because the proposed "fixes" for this non-existent problem are viewed as fortunate for people in power, and desirous of more power and money.

This statement really isn't supported by the data you're citing. As has been explained to you before, what you can say is that the initial warming is driven by factors other than CO2 concentration (orbital forcing in this case). As for signs of positive feedback effects after this point, contrary to your claim there is evidence of such: